APD 220046
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to make a mathematical correction to the certification of maximum medical improvement / impairment rating.
APD 220068
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision on maximum medical improvement and impairment rating because of internal inconsistencies in the adopted doctor’s report. Specifically, the date of maximum medical improvement was different on the DWC-69 from the date in the narrative report.
APD 220075
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge because of a misapplication of the AMA Guides by the certifying doctor in the adopted report. Specifically, the certifying doctor used range of motion measurements from a previous physical therapy note that was not in evidence.
APD 212101
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision to reconstruct the record. The Appeals Panel noted that the number of pages indicated on the exhibit list did not match the number of pages in the exhibits.
APD 212095
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s extent-of-injury determination as incomplete. The Appeals Panel noted that the decision did not contain any findings of fact, conclusions of law, or a decision regarding specific conditions listed in the issue.
APD 212106
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to make a mathematical correction to the certification of maximum medical improvement / impairment rating.
APD 212063
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision to make a mathematical correction to the certification of maximum medical improvement / impairment rating.
APD 212037
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision on maximum medical improvement and impairment rating. The Appeals Panel noted that the administrative law judge’s discussion of the evidence was inconsistent with her determinations.
APD 211956
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision to reconstruct the record. The Appeals Panel noted that the number of pages indicated on the exhibit list did not match the number of pages in the exhibits.
APD 211971
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding extent of injury. The Appeals Panel held that when a designated doctor was not properly appointed in a case, the parties should receive the benefit of an impartial examination by a qualified designated doctor.